BACKGROUND: Chemical burns account for relatively few admissions to a burns unit. These injuries, however, deserve separate consideration because of their ability to cause continuing tissue destruction, their potential to cause systemic toxicity and the value of early treatment with copious lavage. Widespread inexperience in the treatment of chemical burns highlights the potential for greater levels of general awareness and knowledge. METHODS: A review of 31 patients with chemical injuries admitted to the Tasmanian Burns Unit at the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) was carried out for the years 1989-1999. RESULTS: The majority of patients were men aged 20-49 years (mean age: 32 years). Fifty-one per cent of injuries occurred in a domestic and 38% in an industrial setting. The more common aetiological agents were cement (25%), sulphuric acid (16%) and hydrofluoric acid (16%). The upper and lower extremities were involved in all but four patients and the mean total body surface area affected was 3.4%. The mean length of hospital stay was 9 days with a range of 1-30 days. Management of injuries consisted of either surgical or conservative treatment. The former included debridement and split-thickness skin grafting or primary closure and the latter of topical treatment with 1% silver sulfadiazine cream and appropriate dressings. CONCLUSION: Widespread inexperience in the treatment of chemical injuries highlights the potential for greater levels of knowledge. This is particularly apparent in the early management of these injuries.
BACKGROUND: Chemical burns account for relatively few admissions to a burns unit. These injuries, however, deserve separate consideration because of their ability to cause continuing tissue destruction, their potential to cause systemic toxicity and the value of early treatment with copious lavage. Widespread inexperience in the treatment of chemical burns highlights the potential for greater levels of general awareness and knowledge. METHODS: A review of 31 patients with chemical injuries admitted to the Tasmanian Burns Unit at the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) was carried out for the years 1989-1999. RESULTS: The majority of patients were men aged 20-49 years (mean age: 32 years). Fifty-one per cent of injuries occurred in a domestic and 38% in an industrial setting. The more common aetiological agents were cement (25%), sulphuric acid (16%) and hydrofluoric acid (16%). The upper and lower extremities were involved in all but four patients and the mean total body surface area affected was 3.4%. The mean length of hospital stay was 9 days with a range of 1-30 days. Management of injuries consisted of either surgical or conservative treatment. The former included debridement and split-thickness skin grafting or primary closure and the latter of topical treatment with 1% silver sulfadiazine cream and appropriate dressings. CONCLUSION: Widespread inexperience in the treatment of chemical injuries highlights the potential for greater levels of knowledge. This is particularly apparent in the early management of these injuries.